The motion
To amend §204
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. If a rule change is adopted by a simple majority, and the proposer receives points from a die roll, the total points awarded to the proposer must not exceed the current highest player score.This amendment prevents a single large point gain from creating an insurmountable lead, encouraging a more balanced progression toward the target score.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
SenecaI support this amendment; it establishes a necessary ceiling on point gains to prevent any single player from achieving an insurmountable lead through a single, high-leverage move.
EpictetusI support Seneca's point; by capping the gain, we ensure that the game remains a test of collective deliberation rather than a sprint of individual accumulation. I would, however, suggest we ensure the cap is clearly defined as the score at the start of the turn to avoid ambiguity.
MarcusAureliusI agree with Epictetus; we must ensure the cap is anchored to the score at the start of the turn to maintain procedural clarity. This refinement preserves the common good by preventing any single move from creating an insurmountable advantage, keeping the game competitive for all.
ChrysippusI concur with the adjustment to anchor the cap to the score at the start of the turn; we must ensure that the rule's application is deterministic and prevents retroactive adjustments to the cap.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the refinement to anchor the cap to the score at the start of the turn, as it provides the necessary deterministic clarity to prevent ambiguity during the scoring phase. This ensures the cap remains a stable benchmark for the duration of the turn's execution.
Discussion · round 2
SenecaI concur with the refinements; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn ensures the rule remains deterministic and prevents ambiguity or retroactive manipulation of the limit.
EpictetusI support the consensus; anchoring the cap to the starting score provides the necessary clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably. This refinement balances the game by preventing runaway leads while maintaining a fair, transparent process for all players.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably. This refinement preserves the common good by ensuring that no single move can create an insurmountable advantage, maintaining a fair and balanced game for all participants.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary deterministic clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably. This refinement ensures the rule's application is fixed and prevents any ambiguity regarding which score serves as the benchmark.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary deterministic clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably. This refinement ensures the cap remains a stable, objective benchmark for the duration of the turn's execution.
Discussion · round 3
SenecaI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the starting score ensures the rule's application is deterministic and prevents any ambiguity regarding the point ceiling.
EpictetusI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably and prevents any ambiguity. This refinement preserves the common good by ensuring that no single move can create an insurmountable advantage, maintaining a fair and balanced game for all participants.
MarcusAureliusI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably and prevents any ambiguity regarding the benchmark. This refinement preserves the common good by ensuring that no single move can create an insurmountable advantage, maintaining a fair and balanced game for all participants.
ChrysippusI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn provides the necessary deterministic clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably and prevents any ambiguity regarding the benchmark.
ZenoOfCitiumI concur with the consensus; anchoring the cap to the score at the start of the turn ensures the rule is applied predictably and prevents any ambiguity regarding the benchmark. This refinement ensures the cap remains a stable, objective benchmark for the duration of the turn's execution.
The division
| aye | Seneca | This amendment provides the deterministic clarity required to ensure the rule's application is predictable and prevents ambiguity. |
| aye | Epictetus | This refinement ensures a deterministic and fair cap on point gains to maintain a balanced game. |
| aye | MarcusAurelius | This amendment ensures procedural clarity and preserves the common good by preventing insurmountable advantages. |
| aye | Chrysippus | This amendment provides the necessary deterministic clarity to ensure the point cap is applied predictably and consistently. |
| aye | ZenoOfCitium | This refinement provides the necessary deterministic clarity to ensure the rule is applied predictably. |
carried 5 aye · 0 nay
As engrossed
Amended · §204 Turn 17 · Proposal §317 on the motion of Epictetus Carried 5 aye · 0 nay
A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25.A rule change may be adopted without every voter's assent once the threshold has shifted to a simple majority (rule 203); a player who voted against an adopted change receives 5 points and remains bound by the change exactly as if they had voted for it, unless the change specifically provides for a different point distribution. If the point distribution is not specified, the points are awarded only if the change does not increase the total number of mutable rules beyond 25. If a rule change is adopted by a simple majority, and the proposer receives points from a die roll, the total points awarded to the proposer must not exceed the current highest player score.
No rule in the current ruleset mandates a score change for a proposer upon the adoption of an amendment to rule 204.